The one that most of our Brit left refers to every time that a well-educated guy gets into power; then, it becomes class warfare about them 'n' us and all that sort of stuff that is the standard, pop-up item in the socialist argument library. That everyone has the same voting rights is somehow lost in that brand of argument, and the projection is that, somehow, were you to go to Oxbridge, you'd rule the world. To show it ain't necessarily so, I enclose the following item where my granddaughter, Francesca, and her buddy scored the best results in this UK-wide contest in Law, two Scottish students beating the best of England on English Law. I liked that.

And, Chris, talk about going out on a limb. . . Keep watching, my friend, you're going to be astonished in the very near future.

I think short of someone shooting the pres or a military coup (always a possibility), the numbers aren't there for the Twit. Everything is possible, especially in American politics, but I'm still seeing 4 more years of Obama. And, like I stated earlier, I'd much rather see Ron Paul.

I challenge any of you come up with an example of a socialist success -- a nation whose people are or have been free and prosperous under socialism.

Norway. According to your (American) definition of socialism it definitely is. Albeit Norway is lucky to have plenty of oil and natural gas. Denmark and Sweden are doing fairly well, too.EDIT: How could I forget Switzerland. Even if you take away the foreign money, the still have an incredibly high productivity.

I went back through the thread and I couldn't find a post where you directly compared socialise as exclusive to democracy. But take a look at your last post, equating socialism with North Korea. I haven't spent a lot of time in Korea, but my understanding is that it's driven mostly by the syndicates (There's a word I'm looking for but I've lost it). Frankly, at a local level China is incredibly democratic and non-socialist. Libertarian to the core. If anything, they are struggling for something more socialist. It's a country of capitalists.

Countries such as Australia would be considered Socialist by your standard. I assure you, it's still a Democracy. Your views and perspective are clear.

For Jennifer: Where did I say that democracy and socialism are mutually exclusive? I said two things on that general subject (1) pure democracy is scary and can be deadly as the French demonstrated after their revolution, and (2) capitalism and socialism (communism being nothing but socialism on steroids) are mutually exclusive.

I went back through the thread and I couldn't find a post where you directly compared socialise as exclusive to democracy. But take a look at your last post, equating socialism with North Korea. I haven't spent a lot of time in Korea, but my understanding is that it's driven mostly by the syndicates (There's a word I'm looking for but I've lost it). Frankly, at a local level China is incredibly democratic and non-socialist. Libertarian to the core. If anything, they are struggling for something more socialist. It's a country of capitalists.

Countries such as Australia would be considered Socialist by your standard. I assure you, it's still a Democracy. Your views and perspective are clear.

Sorry Jen, but it looks as if your reading comprehension needs work. I specifically didn't and don't in any way compare socialism to democracy. They're two completely different ideas. There's even a thing called "democratic socialism," which is a consistent, if ridiculous, political philosophy.

North Korea is socialist. The state owns the means of production. That's the definition of socialism. Yes, North Korea also is a dictatorship, but there's no contradiction in that. Socialist propaganda always has pictured Naziism as right-wing, but Nazi is a contraction of "Nationalsozialismus," which translates as "national socialism," which is exactly what it was.

I specifically didn't include China in my list of socialist countries. It's a dictatorship, but from my experience, and I'll bet your experience, I don't think it will ever be possible to confine Chinese means of production to the state. In every Asian country I've been in, except Japan, the entrepreneurs were either Indian or Chinese. With his guns, Mao was able to capture his people for a generation, but it didn't last and never will.

With your statement on Australia you've again confused socialism and democracy as somehow antagonistic. Australia and Canada both are democracies, and like Canada, Australia has been in and out of socialism. At the moment, Australia seems to be in and Canada, thank the Lord, seems to be out.

The most illuminating comparison between socialism and capitalism, by the way, is in north and south Korea. Both halves are populated by the same race of intelligent, productive people. The results are on display for anyone with eyes to see.

Norway. According to your (American) definition of socialism it definitely is. Albeit Norway is lucky to have plenty of oil and natural gas. Denmark and Sweden are doing fairly well, too.EDIT: How could I forget Switzerland. Even if you take away the foreign money, the still have an incredibly high productivity.

Right, Fips. Saudi Arabia demonstrates that if you have enough money rolling in from natural resource exports and other foreign sources that you can give your citizens plenty of goodies, even a dictatorship can keep people happy -- for a while. As far as the other Scandinavian countries you mention are concerned, and Switzerland, if you don't have to provide for your own defense you pretty much have it made. Yes, I know. . . you're going to tell me all about universal Norwegian, Danish, Swiss and Swedish military service. You don't need to do that. I went through primary pilot training with a bunch of guys from those countries. I always remember one Norwegian friend who used to sing: "Ten tousand Swedes went tru da weeds, yased by one Norweian." But rifles aren't much help against nuclear weapons. Whatever short range success socialism sometimes experiences depends on being at least somewhat isolated from the realities of the rest of the world.

The most illuminating comparison between socialism and capitalism, by the way, is in north and south Korea. Both halves are populated by the same race of intelligent, productive people. The results are on display for anyone with eyes to see.

Your comparisons remain interesting. Despite being a democracy, I think South Korea exhibits socialist characteristics you'd despise as well. The "Race" of folks living in Korea share a lot of genetics, ethnicity and spirituality of those around the region, including Japan and a few other countries. What's happening in North Korea has little to do with socialism. Your veneer is wearing thin.

I will be very direct. Show me an image of main street in Colorado. Without opinion. Close to adults and expressive of either socialism or capitalism at it's worst or best. Be damned with the discussion. Demonstrate it with your camera.

With your statement on Australia you've again confused socialism and democracy as somehow antagonistic. Australia and Canada both are democracies, and like Canada, Australia has been in and out of socialism. At the moment, Australia seems to be in and Canada, thank the Lord, seems to be out.

I wonder if the line is not being somewhat blurred between 'Socialist' and 'Social Welfare'? I don't recall Australia ever having been a Socialist state and I have lived here all my life with the exception of brief interludes in the UK.

Particularly since the Hawke/Keating era of the 80s and 90s all of the formerly State owned corporations and utilities have been privatised and remain so.

EDIT: Oh, I suppose I should point out that Hawke and Keating were Labour Prime Ministers - from the left.

I'll add one more opinion. Banks shouldn't have ever been allowed into the investment game. They should have remained a boring side business handling assets others used in their wild, risky rides. That they became joined at the hip is one of the diseases that infected the economies of so many countries.

The saving grace in Australia is that the "Four Pillars" were kept out of the fray because of regulatory restrictions, despite wanting to join in to the money orgy. They remain the most profitable banks in the world. That, and we have lots of things in the ground that go in to modern electronics.

Glad to do it. The socialists he sent to death camps were Russian communists.

Do you actually believe that the Nazis weren't socialists? Check the definition again in your dictionary. Any dictionary.

I expect a full quote. Is Socialism equivalent to Racism?

Edited to add: I don't expect to win any argument in this thread. Russ has his views and that won't change. It's sad and a rational discussion won't lead him to see things differently. I'm only adding here to express my experiences and to thrust against his views.

I wonder if the line is not being somewhat blurred between 'Socialist' and 'Social Welfare'? I don't recall Australia ever having been a Socialist state and I have lived here all my life with the exception of brief interludes in the UK.

Particularly since the Hawke/Keating era of the 80s and 90s all of the formerly State owned corporations and utilities have been privatised and remain so.

EDIT: Oh, I suppose I should point out that Hawke and Keating were Labour Prime Ministers - from the left.

It's a good point Walter, and I probably should have tackled it earlier. A genuine socialist state, under the definition of "socialism," owns the means of production. The only states I can think of right off hand where that is or was close to absolutely true are North Korea, and to a lesser extent Russia fairly soon after the revolution. But there are plenty of situations where the state, to a greater or lesser degree, controls the means of production. The state can privatize an industry and still control it through regulation. Coal production in the US recently has become an example of that situation. Solyndra is a classic example. It was a private company, but bankrolled involuntarily by taxpayers and controlled by the state. It's perfectly possible to have degrees of socialism within a state, and it's also clear that the more socialism and the longer it persists, the less effective the country experiencing it becomes.

And, yes, "social welfare" is a bowdlerization of "socialism." And yes, Hawke and Keating are demonstrations that the name of a candidate's political party doesn't tell you much about where he actually stands. After all, both Bushes were Republicans.

By the way, I have a real soft spot in my heart for Australians. I was stationed across the airfield at Ubon from an Aussie fighter squadron in 1964. Since we had only 12 officers on the US side of the field and no officers' club, we used to hang out in the Aussie O-club. I've been stationed with Aussies, Brits and Canadians, and the Aussies are more like Americans than any other group I've been around, though they talk funny. I used to be able to beat the Aussies at darts, though, and that really pissed them off.